YouTuber's 'dirty' comments spark massive row in India
These were the words India's Supreme Court used on Tuesday while granting interim protection from arrest to a popular YouTuber who has been in the eye of a storm in the country over the past week.
The furore began after Ranveer Allahbadia, whose YouTube channel BeerBiceps has eight million followers, asked a contestant the question: "Would you rather watch your parents have sex every day for the rest of your life or join in once and stop it forever?"
The comments, made on the show India's Got Latent on 9 February, sparked massive outrage, police cases and even death threats. YouTube quickly removed the episode, but that didn't stall the tide of anger directed at Allahbadia and the show.
In fact, the amount of attention the incident has received is mind-boggling: it has made national headlines, been covered on primetime TV and some of India's most prominent news sites have even run live pages.
Not surprising, considering the star status of Allahbadia. He has interviewed federal ministers, top Bollywood celebrities, cricketers and Hollywood actors. And last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi handed him a "National Creators Awards" trophy.
Since the controversy erupted, Allahbadia and the show's creator, Samay Raina, have apologised for the comments and Raina has taken down all previous episodes of the show. The Supreme Court in its recent order banned Allahbadia from posting content on social media.
But the incident continues to make news,
"It feels like the state is trying to make an example out of Allahbadia," says Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation. Saket Gokhale, an opposition lawmaker, also condemned the targeting of Allahbadia and the show.
"Crass content can be criticised if it offends you. However, you cannot have the state persecute and lock up people for offending your 'moral sentiments'," he wrote in a post on X.
Popular comedian Vir Das also weighed in on the controversy and criticised news channels for their one-dimensional coverage of the incident and for taking a disparaging view of all digital content.
Allahbadia's remarks and the subsequent backlash have triggered debates around free speech and India's obscenity laws; it has also sparked conversations around the thirst for viral content and the consequences its makers face when their content crosses lines upheld by the very people who watch it.
Raina's show, which debuted in June, has been popular from the start, with each episode being viewed tens of millions of times on YouTube. And it hasn't shied away from kickstarting controversies either.
The show has platformed some bizarre performances and judges and contestants have been seen making crass and crude comments more than a few times. Critics have accused the show of spewing misogynistic views and for body-shaming guests.
A popular fashion influencer once walked out of the show after a male contestant compared her to a former adult film actress while another asked her about her "body count" (a slang term for the number of sexual partners a person has had).
But that seems to have been the appeal of the show too.
Fans of the show have hailed it for championing "raw talent and unfiltered jokes". Some have said that they liked the roasts - a form of insult comedy - which was popular on the show.
Experts have underscored how, with the entertainment landscape exploding, digital content creators often feel compelled to push the envelope - even if it means resorting to the risqué and lewd - just to gain views and virality.
It's safe to say the show pushed the envelope and the buttons of many. But then, it backfired.
"A lot of comedy, especially of a certain masculine kind, is cruel and punches down on people. It has a violent undercurrent. So if you contribute to that culture, it's not a shock if it comes back to bite you some day," filmmaker Paromita Vohra says.
She adds that successful comedy calls for a fine-tuned awareness of the audience it is being performed for and what boundaries it can push.
Interestingly, Allahbadia's question, which sparked the furore, was almost identical to the question asked by the host of an Australian comedy show called OG Crew's Truth or Drink. While the question didn't spark outrage in Australia, it has in India.
"The internet has made it possible for content to reach spaces and people it was not organically playing to. Unthinkingly appropriating content can have unexpected consequences," she says.
But she also says that there's a need to guard against making such issues a question of morality.
"When such controversies erupt, there is always the risk of morality being weaponised to punish people who have gone against what's accepted by society," she says and adds that morality is increasingly being beaten into the legal framework of the country, which can have a divisive effect.
Some critics have also accused the authorities of using the controversy as a smoke screen to divert attention from other pressing problems - like unemployment and pollution. Some fear that it will be used by the federal government as a reason to justify further regulating content creation.
After the controversy, a report by NDTV news channel stated that a parliamentary panel was considering making laws around digital content stricter. The Supreme Court too has pushed for more regulations around online content.
Mr Gupta says the state already has a "tremendous amount of power" to prosecute people accused of flouting various data and content laws and that while the state exercises its powers without restraint, content creators don't have as many legal safeguards to protect them.
"Instead of tighter laws, we need more reform; existing legal standards need to be more tolerant of free expression," he says.
"Other systems, like education and digital learning should be strengthened so that young people know to get their education from the classroom, and turn to the internet only for entertainment."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
6 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Kentucky Church Brings Pandemic-Era Legal Dispute to Supreme Court
A Kentucky church is asking the Supreme Court to decide if the state government must pay its legal expenses from a challenge to COVID-19-era restrictions on church attendance. The church is arguing that its constitutional rights were violated when it was denied attorney's fees in its lawsuit, after the same court awarded those fees to litigants in another lawsuit based on the same facts.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Has Hit Rock Bottom
The Supreme Court's most recent term may be over, but its work on behalf of President Donald Trump continues. The justices announced on Wednesday evening in Trump v. Boyle that they would stay a lower court order that had blocked Trump from firing the three Democratic appointees on the Consumer Product Safety Commission. As usual, the court's action took place on the shadow docket, where it handles emergency appeals and motions. This time, the court's conservative majority greatly expanded that docket's power to decide legal and constitutional questions. In theory, shadow-docket actions are procedural or administrative in nature and shouldn't be seen as a decision on the actual merits of a case. That understanding no longer holds weight. Trump's dismissals violated a federal statute passed by Congress that only allows the president to fire CPSC commissioners for cause. The Supreme Court previously ruled in the 1934 case Humphrey's Executor v. United States that Congress could lawfully extend for-cause removal protections to the heads of certain agencies. Congress has not repealed the law in question. The Supreme Court also has not overturned Humphrey's Executor outright. Except, well, now it effectively has. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the court wrote in its unsigned order. 'The stay we issued in [Trump v.] Wilcox reflected 'our judgment that the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.'' You morons, the court might as well have said to lower court judges. Why are you applying our precedents to these cases? Why aren't you telepathically discerning the law of the land from these unsigned orders where we barely explain ourselves? Why aren't you treating our procedural moves as equivalent to a fully briefed decision on the merits? Don't you know we want Humphrey's Executor dead and buried? Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for his part, was the only member of the majority with a somewhat intellectually consistent position on how to handle this case. He argued in a concurring opinion that, in addition to issuing a stay, the court should have simultaneously agreed to take up the case on the merits because the case centered on whether one of the high court's precedents should be overturned. 'In those unusual circumstances, if we grant a stay but do not also grant certiorari before judgment, we may leave the lower courts and affected parties with extended uncertainty and confusion about the status of the precedent in question,' he argued. (Certiorari before judgment is a rarely used procedure where the court reviews a district court's ruling without waiting for an appeals court to weigh in.) He noted that waiting for the issue to 'percolate' in the lower courts made no sense because lower courts, by definition, cannot overturn a Supreme Court ruling. Justice Elena Kagan noted in a short but stern dissent that the conservatives had wrought major changes to the structure of the federal government with only a cursory explanation. 'The majority's sole professed basis for today's stay order is its prior stay order in Wilcox,' she wrote, referring to the court's prior decision in May to allow Trump to dismiss members of the National Labor Relations Board. 'But Wilcox itself was minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained.' The three-sentence explanation the court gave in Wilcox, Kagan argued, was insufficient to justify Wednesday's order. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' she continued. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite.' At that point, Kagan noted, the court's reasoning would be 'turtles all the way down.' (Kagan also wrote the dissent in the Wilcox case; she appears to be the liberal justices' point person on this issue.) The immediate impact of Wednesday's order is that Trump will be able to dismantle the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which will, in turn, make it easier for companies to keep unsafe and dangerous products on the market. This is not a good thing for Americans, of course, but it is a great boon to those companies that want Americans to keep buying their unsafe and dangerous products. In the longer term, Wednesday's ruling is a further sign of how the Supreme Court is getting worse during Trump's second term: more lawless, more arbitrary, less judicial, and less respectable. Here is how the federal government has generally worked within living memory. Congress generally passes laws to provide the scaffolding for federal agencies to regulate the national economy. In theory, Congress could pass a new law every time it wants to approve a cancer drug, or ban a pesticide, or do any of the other mundane but vital tasks that come with governing a modern industrialized economy. Instead, it created agencies to regulate these things within the bounds that Congress authorizes. Most of these agencies operate directly under the president. Starting in the early twentieth century, Congress also began to create agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission to tackle more complex economic issues, investing them with a greater degree of power and autonomy. Presidents have the power to appoint the heads of these agencies, as the Constitution requires, but Congress set limits on when and how they can fire them to give those agencies a measure of independence. The first real legal test of these limits came in 1933 when the newly elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired William Humphrey, one of the FTC commissioners appointed by Calvin Coolidge, over his qualms about the New Deal. Humphrey died of a stroke in early 1934, and the executor of his estate sued the federal government over his salary. If Humphrey's firing was illegal, the estate would have a claim on the money that the government owed to him. The Supreme Court unanimously sided with Humphrey's estate—a striking result given the court's later divides over the constitutionality of the New Deal. The court limited Myers v. United States, a 1927 ruling where then–Chief Justice William Howard Taft suggested a much broader removal power for the president, and held that because the FTC and similar agencies exercised 'quasi-legislative' and 'quasi-judicial' powers, Congress could limit the executive branch's power over them. This worked out pretty well for the United States, which enjoyed a high standard of living and unprecedented economic prosperity throughout the twentieth century. You would not know this if you only listened to the conservative legal movement, which often describes these agencies and their powers in ominous and near-apocalyptic terms. In a 2020 case, for example, Justice Clarence Thomas claimed in a concurring opinion that 'the decision in Humphrey's Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people.' Humphrey's Executor was 85 years old at that point, and the republic somehow managed to survive until then. It would be more accurate to say that the precedent was a threat to corporate interests since it preserved the independence of their regulators from political interference. (The court often gets these things confused.) Selia Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the case in which Thomas wrote that concurring opinion, narrowed Humphrey's Executor by allowing Trump to fire the CFPB's director. That decision, in turn, paved the way for the Trump administration to dismantle the agency altogether when it retook power earlier this year. At the center of the court's approach to these agencies is a fundamental misunderstanding about the separation of powers and the early republic. In his majority opinion in Selia Law, Roberts explained the Framers' mindset through his own hyper-presidentialism. He sketched a vision of the Constitution where Congress was a potential fount of despotism and the presidency was the bulwark of American democracy. 'The Framers viewed the legislative power as a special threat to individual liberty, so they divided that power to ensure that 'differences of opinion' and the 'jarrings of parties' would 'promote deliberation and circumspection' and 'check excesses in the majority,'' he wrote, quoting from the Federalist Papers. 'By contrast, the Framers thought it necessary to secure the authority of the Executive so that he could carry out his unique responsibilities. As Madison put it, while 'the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be … divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.'' 'The Framers deemed an energetic executive essential to 'the protection of the community against foreign attacks,' 'the steady administration of the laws,' 'the protection of property,' and 'the security of liberty,'' Roberts continued, quoting again from various parts of the Federalist Papers. 'Accordingly, they chose not to bog the Executive down with the 'habitual feebleness and dilatoriness' that comes with a 'diversity of views and opinions.' Instead, they gave the Executive the '[d]ecision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch' that 'characterise the proceedings of one man.'' I do not doubt that the Framers intended the presidency to be a potent and vital branch of government. But Roberts's understanding of the founding era is impossible to square with even a modicum of historical context. The Framers did not write the Constitution in a vacuum; they gathered for the express purpose of fixing the flaws in the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, there was no president and no national system of courts, and its legislature had few powers that could only be exercised unanimously. The Constitution, by its very nature, created a far more powerful executive and judiciary than what existed under the Articles. Something is always infinitely greater than nothing. Far from weakening the legislative branch, the Framers made it a substantially more powerful institution than its predecessor under the Articles or the revolutionary-era Continental Congress. They imbued it with the power to tax and regulate interstate commerce. They transferred to it the states' powers over trade, copyright, naturalization, and diplomacy with Native American nations. It has the power to create and destroy any federal court other than the Supreme Court, and it can limit even the high court's jurisdiction to a significant degree. Congress can remove any executive or judicial officer from power with a majority vote in one chamber and a two-thirds vote in the other, while the president and the courts cannot remove a single senator or representative from their duly elected office for any reason whatsoever. It can disband and defund the president's armies and agencies at will. It could add a hundred justices to the Supreme Court on a whim. All of these powers are just the explicit, undisputed ones at its command. If the Framers actually thought the legislative branch was a 'unique threat to individual liberty,' they didn't show it when they actually wrote the Constitution. I digress slightly. Even against this backdrop, Roberts refused to kill Humphrey's Executor altogether. He distinguished between the CFPB, which had a single director, and agencies like the FTC or the SEC that had a single multimember commission. Whether that conclusion is consistent with historical practice is debatable, as Kagan noted in her dissent in that case, but at least it is an intelligible legal and constitutional argument. Now the court has abandoned such things. Its apparent goal is to destroy (or, as in these particular cases, make it easier for other constitutional actors to destroy) federal regulatory agencies as they have existed for nearly every American's lifetime. It does not care that Congress has created them or that presidents signed them into law; it refuses to even acknowledge the elected branches' real interests here. In Wednesday's order, as I mentioned earlier, the majority explained that it thought 'the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.' Kagan noted in her Wilcox dissent that this framing got the issue exactly and deliberately wrong. 'On the latter side, the relevant interest is not the 'wrongfully removed officers,' but rather Congress's and, more broadly, the public's,' she explained, referring to the two fired NLRB appointees. 'What matters, in other words, is not that Wilcox and Harris would love to keep serving in their nifty jobs. What matters instead is that Congress provided for them to serve their full terms, protected from a president's desire to substitute his political allies.' Nothing sums up how hackish and unjudicial the court's approach has been more than its Federal Reserve exception in Wilcox. Many court-watchers had thought, especially after Selia Law, that the Supreme Court's current roster would not overturn Humphrey's Executor in its entirety, in large part because there would be no way to logically maintain the for-cause protection for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors if it did. Few things could more fundamentally disrupt and weaken American capital markets—and, by extension, the American economy—than giving a president direct control over the Fed's monetary levers. Imagine if Trump could set interest rates like he sets tariff rates. The NLRB members warned as much in their filings in the Wilcox case. So the conservative majority squared the circle by declaring, almost by fiat, that its implied overruling of Humphrey's Executor did not apply to the Federal Reserve. 'The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,' the court's unsigned order said without further elaboration. Its sole legal citation for this point was a footnote in Selia Law where the court had assumed, purely for the sake of argument in response to a dissent, that the Fed could claim a 'special historical status.' This is one step above simply writing, 'Why? Because the court said so, that's why.' Kagan could barely contain her disgust in her Wilcox dissent. 'And so an assumption made to humor a dissent gets turned into some kind of holding,' she wrote. 'Because one way of making new law on the emergency docket (the deprecation of Humphrey's) turns out to require yet another (the creation of a bespoke Federal Reserve exception). If the idea is to reassure the markets, a simpler—and more judicial—approach would have been to deny the President's application for a stay on the continued authority of Humphrey's.' All of this represents a fundamental shift in how the Supreme Court operates. The court could have allowed the CPSC and NLRB officials to stay in office to preserve the status quo during litigation, heard their cases on an accelerated briefing schedule, and overturned Humphrey's Executor while ruling against them on the merits. The court's critics could have disagreed with the court's ultimate reasoning, but they could have found no fault in how it operated to get there. Instead, the conservative justices simply did what they wanted to do because they could. What a dizzying sensation that will be for any American raised in our civic faith. Covering the court for the last six months feels less like covering a court of law steeped in the Anglo-American legal tradition and more like covering the Soviet Union's politburo or Iran's Guardian Council from afar. The Supreme Court's most impactful work this year has not been to decide actual cases and controversies on the merits, or to fairly balance the equities on shadow-docket questions, but to enforce a certain ideological vision upon the American constitutional order as quickly, as bluntly, and as hackishly as it can. I do not write lightly that the central theme coming from the Supreme Court as of late is that Trump's own vision for the country supersedes the laws that Congress has actually written—to provide for-cause removal protections, to create a Department of Education, to provide anti-torture protections for prospective deportees, and so on. As Humphrey's Executor's fate shows, that vision might even outrank the decisions of the high court itself when the justices agree with it. That raises an unsettling question: If the justices don't respect their own precedents or procedures, why should anyone else?
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
British Comic Nish Kumar on How YouTube Helped Him Achieve Success Outside of the U.K.
British comic and podcast host Nish Kumar knows the value of Netflix specials for A-listers like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle. But he sees emerging comedians like himself with slow-burn careers often getting their biggest boost globally from YouTube after years playing clubs big and small back home. 'I'm primarily known in North America because of a British show called Taskmaster, which people outside the UK watch on YouTube,' Kumar told The Hollywood Reporter while performing at the Just For Laughs comedy festival in Montreal. More from The Hollywood Reporter 'In the Land of Arto': Camille Cottin, Zar Amir Ebrahimi Journey Into Armenia and Its Past (Exclusive Clips) Why Stand-up Legend George Wallace Can't Get Off the Stage After 49 Years in Comedy: "I'm Living My Dream" Former Obama Speechwriter Jon Lovett on How Trump Is Funny Like a "Clown With a Gun" Re-runs of Taskmaster, a British comedy panel game show that included Kumar, have been viewed on YouTube as creator-driven online platforms increasingly disrupt the traditional media landscape, and podcasts like Crooked Media's Pod Save the UK, which Kumar co-hosts with cultural journalist Coco Khan, transform the audio space. The podcast gig followed Kumar appearing on stage at a live London comedy show produced by Crooked Media, which was followed by that proverbial chance call from Hollywood. Soon after he walked off stage, he got a call from Los Angeles asking if he could be at a meeting in London in 20 minutes. 'And I was like, I'm already there. I'm literally in the audience. So I got pulled out of the crowd like Courteney Cox in the 'Dancing in the Dark' video,' Kumar recalled. Later, Crooked Media asked if he'd be interested in launching and hosting a British show, which he did. Kumar's Pod Save the UK offers a weekly fix on U.K. politics. That means Kumar and co-host Khan got to cover the downfall of British prime minister Boris Johnson over his rule-breaking parties in No. 10 during the COVID-19 pandemic. 'In terms of historic failures of leadership, I think Johnson's conduct in the pandemic is one of those things that people will study for years,' Kumar says. But while the U.K.'s Conservative Party sent Johnson packing, Kumar has a take on why Donald Trump, also judged by many as a political buffoon whose erratic style endears him to followers, was restored to the White House for a second term. 'Trump has killed the broad church in the Republican Party. It's no longer a political party. It's a delivery system for a single man and that's a huge problem,' he insists. As Nigel Farage, a protégé of Trump, challenges Britain's current Labor government in the polls, Kumar doesn't look forward to his Reform UK party coming to power to reinvigorate his political comedy. 'The thing with (Farage) and Trump is there is a shamelessness. It actually makes it harder to make fun of them. Politicians in theory are supposed to conduct themselves with a level of dignity that means there's something to prick for principles. Farage and Trump are congenitally shameless men,' Kumar said. The Just For Laughs comedy festival continues through Sunday. Best of The Hollywood Reporter Hollywood's Most Notable Deaths of 2025 Harvey Weinstein's "Jane Doe 1" Victim Reveals Identity: "I'm Tired of Hiding" 'Awards Chatter' Podcast: 'Sopranos' Creator David Chase Finally Reveals What Happened to Tony (Exclusive) Solve the daily Crossword
